Practicality or madness?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
I more or less said that Torso man could have changed to another approach, but if he did, then it has to be something like what happened with Bundy: he hadn’t killed for 2.5 years (because he was in jail) and was unable to restrain himself once he’d broken out (perhaps also due to the stress he experienced as a fugitive), even though he claimed he had decided to stay away from criminal activity.

We know this sort of situation doesn’t apply to Torso man & the Ripper, as the former killed the Whitechapel victim around the time Nichols & Chapman were killed. For this same reason and the fact that he seems to have stored the body of the Rainham victim for some months and the fact that there were no other Ripper-type murders in the 15 years since 1873, it also seems quite unlikely to me that the change was brought about because he sometimes didn’t have access to his “chop shop”.

Hi Franko

then it has to be something like what happened with Bundy: he hadn’t killed for 2.5 years (because he was in jail) and was unable to restrain himself once he’d broken out (perhaps also due to the stress he experienced as a fugitive), even though he claimed he had decided to stay away from criminal activity.

Yes that makes logical sense but who knows? maybe it had nothing to do with not killing for a while or being a fugitive. maybe he got wasted and went on a drunken rage. maybe he got caught beating off in a campus bathroom and was angry about it. who knows?

bottom line, it was totally disorganized attack, and totally different than his previous MO. it just emphasizes that killers change based on their circs, sometimes dramatically.

so whether it was torsoman not having his chop shop available, or wanting to up the thrill factor, or whatever, we can speculate all we want but the fact remains they can and do change their tactics depending on their personal circs which all the point im trying to make.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think Kelly's organs were carefully extracted. Dr Bond conducted the autopsy and concluded the perpetrator had no skill at all, not even that of a horse slaughterer. Dr Hebbert confirmed the killer was unskilled.

Thus, the lung seemed to have been ripped out: " The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away (per Dr Bond.) Then there's the heart: "In fact, he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff." (Per Dr Hebbert). What's even more extraordinary, from a single killer perspective, is that in Rainham, an earlier crime, the heart was apparently removed, with no indication of it just being ripped out, as clearly happened with Kelly.

You've also referred to the Golden State killer, and this case perfectly highlights one of my serious concerns with the single killer theory. Here we have a perpetrator consistently breaking into victims homes, I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public. However, if there was a single killer, we have would have to accept that he alternated between attacking victims in public, spending time mutilating them (thus increasing the level of risk), without apparently any concern for being interrupted, or the presence of witnesses, with the far more organized approach of abducting victims, or luring them away to his dismemberment site, preventing identification, and then disposing of the remains without attracting the attention of a single witness. Not only that, the disorganized street killer version of himself is confined to an incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that, as a single killer, he would have been active over a much bigger range, I.e. as demonstrated by the organized version of himself whilst on his dismemberer guise. Not surprisingly, no serial killer in history has operated with anything like this bizarre, and completely confusing, type of MO.

hi john

I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public.

The GSK also attacked people outdoors, including chasing down a couple outside in a neighbor hood and killing them, also shooting someone else outside at another crime scene, he even tried to abduct a girl pulling her outside. so you are wrong about the GSK only attacking indoors.

[Abby Normal]

My only guess would be that the killer (emphasis on singular) had certain physical and psychological triggers which caused the Ripper series. Previously, the Thames Torso killer might have lived in a neighbourhood that wasn't a fitting stomping ground for slaying prostitutes outdoors and disappearing into the night, like Whitechapel was. It could be that Tabram's murder was unplanned and not premeditated, hence the wild, frenzied nature of the crime. It was the first instance the Thames Torso killer had struck outdoors, outside of his usual comfort zone. He gradually grew in confidence and daring, becoming more methodical and putting his butchery skills to proper use. I know this could apply to someone irrespective of whether he was also the Thames Torso killer or not. If the psychological triggers were no longer there, or the Ripper outdoor murders were getting too close for comfort, he may have decided to dial it back and stick to the Torso series.

hi harry
good point. Ive also considered this and think it may also have been something that lead to the torsoman to switch. perhaps the thrill he got from the murder of tabram (and agree that this could have been a trigger kill to his outdoor series) including the press coverage it received may have spurred him on.

Which begs the question-what was the trigger for killing tabram? who knows-could be anything, including perhaps his chop shop wasn't available that evening and hes frustrated about that. or not. perhaps hes just out and encounters her and something she says or does pisses him off-which would account for the apparent frenzy (anger) of the attack.

[Fisherman]

No problem, Christer; I'm a patient man.

Me too - at times. For example, if you do not wish as of now to tell me what you think the perceived two killers respective mindsets were accordiong to you, I can wait.

[Fisherman]

Although the damage done to her face seems malicious and personal, it wasn't damage I was using as a basis for the statement Harry. Its the circumstances.

Killed in her own home, you mean? Or which circumstances are we talking about?

[Fisherman]

My only guess would be that the killer (emphasis on singular) had certain physical and psychological triggers which caused the Ripper series. Previously, the Thames Torso killer might have lived in a neighbourhood that wasn't a fitting stomping ground for slaying prostitutes outdoors and disappearing into the night, like Whitechapel was. It could be that Tabram's murder was unplanned and not premeditated, hence the wild, frenzied nature of the crime. It was the first instance the Thames Torso killer had struck outdoors, outside of his usual comfort zone. He gradually grew in confidence and daring, becoming more methodical and putting his butchery skills to proper use. I know this could apply to someone irrespective of whether he was also the Thames Torso killer or not. If the psychological triggers were no longer there, or the Ripper outdoor murders were getting too close for comfort, he may have decided to dial it back and stick to the Torso series.

Simplicity. Gotta love it, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Kelly was also almost certainly killed by someone she knew intimately, which throws the entire package off. I can see changes happening, these were not static environments...like Disarticulator had when he spent sometime perhaps over days cutting the bodies up privately. Anything might happen out there on the streets, anyone might come by...lots of immediate risk taking. But none of those murders suggest any prior knowledge of predator and prey. He pounced on women who were facilitating a more private public venue...streetwalkers...that were alone, and at least in Polly and Annies case, mentally and physically not 100%. He decided what constituted an opportunity, and worked fast. Marys killer was in her room in the middle of the night, something that we have evidence only Barnett could do in the previous months, she is undressed, and attacked while in bed. The man was permitted to be there in those circumstances. Someone she knew well.

The very nature of that killer does not marry well with someone who spends consecutive days doing this kind of work, and by working indoors out of sight, perhaps a workshop that only he has the key to, Disarticulator is an Organized killer. Not a Spree killer, not an Opportunistic killer. Sure, the actual kill itself was like a seized opportunity, but he has plans. They are why he kills. Like cutting into the abdomens of dead or dying women in the streets was Jacks. The keys there are that the risk was a part of all this for him, and its female abdomens. Not just bowels, not chest cavities, not stripping flesh from bone in private.

Its like he wanted the clock on him. And he had hatred/lust/curiousity/resentment/infantile fury..towards women.

Not enough people wonder why no men victims.

So, how many eviscerating killers who all cut from sternum to groin in London of 1888-89 have you amassed by now, Michael? Is it four? Nichols/Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and Jackson. Is that about correct? Or are there more?

I also expect you to answer my question: Where have I said that there were twelve evisceration murders in victorian London, committed by the same man. You have claimed this, and I have denied it. It´s your honesty that is on line here, so do your best.

[Fisherman]

I don't think Kelly's organs were carefully extracted. Dr Bond conducted the autopsy and concluded the perpetrator had no skill at all, not even that of a horse slaughterer. Dr Hebbert confirmed the killer was unskilled.

And other doctors disagreed, as you will know. Much of the controversy in the errand took it´s beginning when Dr Galoway stated in the Rainham case that an expert had cut up the body. Everything pointed to an anatomist or surgeon at that point, and so Galloway rephrased himself and said that the cutting was BETTER than what a surgeon would achieve, making it more likely that they were dealing with f ex a butcher. What was quite evident was that even if the killer displayed immense skill, he did not cut the way a surgeon would cut and did not do the things a surgeon would do. I believe this is what colours Bonds picture of the Ripper murders - none of it looked in any way the work of a skilled surgeon or anatomist. However, we know that the medicos were impressed by the sheer speed at which the killer must have cut away, and that some of the cutting was deemed very skilful in itself, like the excision of the uterus on Chapman and the kidney extraction from the front on Eddowes.
So no SURGICAL skill, but a lot of skill with the blade nevertheless. The same applies to the Torso man, who knew his way around knife work more than most people.

This is how the deeds should be looked upon, I believe. That is the evidence.

Kellys organs were taken out whole and undamaged as far as we know, there in no mentioning of half a liver or part of a spleen or anything such. Therefore, the killer took care not to damage the organs or divide them when excising them. The one thing that swears against this is the torn lung, but it seems it was removed to get at the heart. Otherwise, the parts seem all to have been intact.

Thus, the lung seemed to have been ripped out: " The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away (per Dr Bond.) Then there's the heart: "In fact, he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff." (Per Dr Hebbert). What's even more extraordinary, from a single killer perspective, is that in Rainham, an earlier crime, the heart was apparently removed, with no indication of it just being ripped out, as clearly happened with Kelly.

So you now agree that Rainham was probably also an evisceration case - good! I´m afraid we don´t know how the heart was taken out in that case; there was an opening from sternum to pubes, so certainly it could have been grabbed and torn down the midriff. Not that I am sure that this happened to Kelly, and I fail to see how Hebbert could have been sure of it. Why could it bot have been cut free and gently pulled down from behind? I have commented on Kellys ribs recenty and will not go into it again, but it seems the ribs were not damaged as such, but instead only the intercostals.

You've also referred to the Golden State killer, and this case perfectly highlights one of my serious concerns with the single killer theory. Here we have a perpetrator consistently breaking into victims homes, I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public.

He shot people out in the open, though. And the main reason for his entering the homes may have been that this was where he knew that the women he had staked out were. Maybe he did not want to wait for them to come out?

However, if there was a single killer, we have would have to accept that he alternated between attacking victims in public, spending time mutilating them (thus increasing the level of risk), without apparently any concern for being interrupted, or the presence of witnesses, with the far more organized approach of abducting victims, or luring them away to his dismemberment site, preventing identification, and then disposing of the remains without attracting the attention of a single witness. Not only that, the disorganized street killer version of himself is confined to an incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that, as a single killer, he would have been active over a much bigger range, I.e. as demonstrated by the organized version of himself whilst on his dismemberer guise. Not surprisingly, no serial killer in history has operated with anything like this bizarre, and completely confusing, type of MO.

There are serial killers who have moved between far more separate killing methods, like Coral Watts and Peter Kürten. There are those who have moved inbetween dismembering and not dismembering, like Tsutomu Miyazaki. The assumption that the Ripper was disorganized is an assumption only, and if he was disorganized, he still seemingly:
- Lured the victims into empty places away from the public
- Managed to sneak away in time when there was a risk to get caught
- Left no traces at the sites
- Brought along a blade suited for eviscerations

This is a killer that you have dubbed "the worlds most disorganized killer", until suddenly loosing interest in commenting on it. How about doing so now? A truly disorganized killer will kill in public, will not even try to flee, will leave all sorts of traces and will not premeditate by bringing along a weapon. Maybe the time has come for you to admit that you were being a country mile off the mark? And once you admit that (as if anybody ever admitted anything out here...), you may perhaps see what it does to this last "point" of yours?

[Michael W Richards]

Nothing certain about that. The extensive damage inflicted on Mary Kelly does not necessitate an intimate connection. You can find numerous examples of gruesome murders where there was no prior relationship between victim and perpetrator.

Although the damage done to her face seems malicious and personal, it wasn't damage I was using as a basis for the statement Harry. Its the circumstances.

[FrankO]

I am really not ready to spill the beans yet, Frank. Sorry.

No problem, Christer; I'm a patient man.

[Harry D]

Kelly was also almost certainly killed by someone she knew intimately, which throws the entire package off.

Nothing certain about that. The extensive damage inflicted on Mary Kelly does not necessitate an intimate connection. You can find numerous examples of gruesome murders where there was no prior relationship between victim and perpetrator.

[Harry D]

That's exactly what I mean, Harry. It's a bit hard to imagine that the nights of the Ripper murders were the only nights in 15 years that Torso man didn't have access to this private place. But even if we suppose the change in approach was due to the non-availability of the place, it wouldn't account for the higher frequency of the murders.

a lot of things don't make sense with serial killers harry. they go in fits and spurts all the time. thats why I brought up bundy sorority spree.

My only guess would be that the killer (emphasis on singular) had certain physical and psychological triggers which caused the Ripper series. Previously, the Thames Torso killer might have lived in a neighbourhood that wasn't a fitting stomping ground for slaying prostitutes outdoors and disappearing into the night, like Whitechapel was. It could be that Tabram's murder was unplanned and not premeditated, hence the wild, frenzied nature of the crime. It was the first instance the Thames Torso killer had struck outdoors, outside of his usual comfort zone. He gradually grew in confidence and daring, becoming more methodical and putting his butchery skills to proper use. I know this could apply to someone irrespective of whether he was also the Thames Torso killer or not. If the psychological triggers were no longer there, or the Ripper outdoor murders were getting too close for comfort, he may have decided to dial it back and stick to the Torso series.

[Michael W Richards]

Kelly was also almost certainly killed by someone she knew intimately, which throws the entire package off. I can see changes happening, these were not static environments...like Disarticulator had when he spent sometime perhaps over days cutting the bodies up privately. Anything might happen out there on the streets, anyone might come by...lots of immediate risk taking. But none of those murders suggest any prior knowledge of predator and prey. He pounced on women who were facilitating a more private public venue...streetwalkers...that were alone, and at least in Polly and Annies case, mentally and physically not 100%. He decided what constituted an opportunity, and worked fast. Marys killer was in her room in the middle of the night, something that we have evidence only Barnett could do in the previous months, she is undressed, and attacked while in bed. The man was permitted to be there in those circumstances. Someone she knew well.

The very nature of that killer does not marry well with someone who spends consecutive days doing this kind of work, and by working indoors out of sight, perhaps a workshop that only he has the key to, Disarticulator is an Organized killer. Not a Spree killer, not an Opportunistic killer. Sure, the actual kill itself was like a seized opportunity, but he has plans. They are why he kills. Like cutting into the abdomens of dead or dying women in the streets was Jacks. The keys there are that the risk was a part of all this for him, and its female abdomens. Not just bowels, not chest cavities, not stripping flesh from bone in private.

Its like he wanted the clock on him. And he had hatred/lust/curiousity/resentment/infantile fury..towards women.

Not enough people wonder why no men victims.

[John G]

That´s what a lawnmower will do, hack people to pieces. If Kelly was hacked to pieces, can you explain why the organs were seemingly carefully extracted and placed undamaged around the body in the bed, John? Why would he not just hack and slash away at them, leaving them as mince-meat in the abdomen? And can you tell me how the eyes were seemingly left unharmed too, as that hacking lawnmower moved over her face? Coincidence?
Under her head, her uterus had been placed together with one of her breasts and both her kidneys. Ergo, the kille placed this heap of organs and flesh together on the bed and then moved Kelly so her head ended up on it. Does that sound like unplanned mayhem to you? It sounds like a conscious act to me. A "hacker", if you will, would probaly not care to take the organs out nice and clean in the first place, nor would he be likely to cut a breast away with the kind of circular incision that was the case here; not in my world, at least. And IF he decided to do a little surgical freelancing, why did he not just toss the organs away? Why did he see to it that Kellys head was left resting on them?

Kelly is NOT the product of somebody hacking away aimlessly at all, I´m afraid. It has been the standard solution that she was for 132 years now, and as far as I´m concerned, it has been wrong all that time. Easy solutions are always comfy, but not always correct.

I don't think Kelly's organs were carefully extracted. Dr Bond conducted the autopsy and concluded the perpetrator had no skill at all, not even that of a horse slaughterer. Dr Hebbert confirmed the killer was unskilled.

Thus, the lung seemed to have been ripped out: " The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away (per Dr Bond.) Then there's the heart: "In fact, he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff." (Per Dr Hebbert). What's even more extraordinary, from a single killer perspective, is that in Rainham, an earlier crime, the heart was apparently removed, with no indication of it just being ripped out, as clearly happened with Kelly.

You've also referred to the Golden State killer, and this case perfectly highlights one of my serious concerns with the single killer theory. Here we have a perpetrator consistently breaking into victims homes, I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public. However, if there was a single killer, we have would have to accept that he alternated between attacking victims in public, spending time mutilating them (thus increasing the level of risk), without apparently any concern for being interrupted, or the presence of witnesses, with the far more organized approach of abducting victims, or luring them away to his dismemberment site, preventing identification, and then disposing of the remains without attracting the attention of a single witness. Not only that, the disorganized street killer version of himself is confined to an incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that, as a single killer, he would have been active over a much bigger range, I.e. as demonstrated by the organized version of himself whilst on his dismemberer guise. Not surprisingly, no serial killer in history has operated with anything like this bizarre, and completely confusing, type of MO.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

I think there is little doubt that Kelly was hacked to pieces, and that crates another serious problem, quite apart from the skill.

That´s what a lawnmower will do, hack people to pieces. If Kelly was hacked to pieces, can you explain why the organs were seemingly carefully extracted and placed undamaged around the body in the bed, John? Why would he not just hack and slash away at them, leaving them as mince-meat in the abdomen? And can you tell me how the eyes were seemingly left unharmed too, as that hacking lawnmower moved over her face? Coincidence?
Under her head, her uterus had been placed together with one of her breasts and both her kidneys. Ergo, the kille placed this heap of organs and flesh together on the bed and then moved Kelly so her head ended up on it. Does that sound like unplanned mayhem to you? It sounds like a conscious act to me. A "hacker", if you will, would probaly not care to take the organs out nice and clean in the first place, nor would he be likely to cut a breast away with the kind of circular incision that was the case here; not in my world, at least. And IF he decided to do a little surgical freelancing, why did he not just toss the organs away? Why did he see to it that Kellys head was left resting on them?

Kelly is NOT the product of somebody hacking away aimlessly at all, I´m afraid. It has been the standard solution that she was for 132 years now, and as far as I´m concerned, it has been wrong all that time. Easy solutions are always comfy, but not always correct.